Page 3 - Aanbevelingen om de integriteit

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report evaluates the effectiveness of the framework in place in the Netherlands to
prevent corruption in respect of persons entrusted with top executive functions (PETFs), including
ministers, state secretaries, political advisors, and members of law enforcement agencies (LEAs),
i.e. the National Police of the Netherlands (NPN) and the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar).

2. The system of government in the Netherlands is based on solid constitutional principles
providing a framework where the government and its members are subject to a high degree of
political accountability to Parliament and to the democratic process. The government (Council of
Ministers), selected and led by the Prime Minister, must always enjoy confidence by Parliament.
Being a collective body, considerable importance is attached to trust, collegiality, consensus and
unity within the government. At the same time, ministers are vested with discretionary powers in
respect of their particular ministries and fields of competence, while also being personally
accountable for their acts before Parliament. This system places a large degree of responsibility on
the members of the government and other PTEFs. The development of policies, strategies and
guidelines are particularly important in such a system.

3. The current report recommends the development of an overall government strategy for the
integrity of PTEFs, based on a risk analysis aiming at preventing various forms of conflicts of interest
which may arise. In this spirit, the establishment of a code of conduct for PTEFs which focuses
specifically on ethical and integrity matters - along with measures for their implementation - would
be an appropriate complement to the existing Handbook for Ministers and State Secretaries. In this
context, it is particularly important to address areas such as lobbying and post-employment
situations. Moreover, the current system needs to be complemented with a requirement upon PTEFs
to report situations of conflicting interests as they occur (ad hoc) and for them to declare personal
interests (including of a financial character) not only before a new government is formed, but also at
regular intervals, while in office. Such a requirement needs to be coupled with transparency and
appropriate scrutiny.

4. The report acknowledges that there is a strong commitment to integrity matters in the police
services in the Netherlands and policies in this respect have long been a priority. It is also noted that
the police services enjoy a high degree of public trust by the population. Although integrity policies
are nothing new in the Netherlands, it is worth mentioning that the police have not been spared of
integrity violations, for example, in respect of leaking information and connections with organised
crime groups; this is a worrying trend that is currently being dealt with by the authorities.

5. Codes of conduct exist in both NPN and KMar. The NPN deals with its ethical guidelines as
“living instruments” that evolve over time in the form of “Theme pages”, attached to a general
professional code. This is a commendable approach, which is very useful for general awareness and
training of police officers. However, the current guidelines would benefit from being further
complemented with practical guidance etc. to provide an even more consolidated framework. A
similar approach would be preferable also for the KMar. Considering that these agencies both carry
out law enforcement functions, joint efforts would be preferable. Training materials are also well
developed in the NPN and the coordinating role in this respect at central level could be further
strengthened for synergy reasons, considering that the practical training is largely decentralised to
the regional units. Particular areas that require further efforts - as highlighted in the report - relate to
management of situations of gifts/advantages, the use of confidential information and situations of
post-employment. Enforced vetting procedures of staff while in service are required and a system of
declaration of financial interests among officials holding sensitive posts is foreseen but has not yet
gone into practice, which is regretful. The report also highlights a need to introduce a requirement
upon police officers to report corruption related misconduct within the service; this goes beyond the
current obligation to report criminal offences.

3